Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

The point is... however obnoxious they may be, they're g-d drawings with ink and paper. The ages of the fictional characters are meaningless. They are the expressions of ideas and musings. There's literally no difference between this "crime" and imagining bad things happening to the prosecutor.

The more I think about it, the more stunning a disaster this is in legal-land.

As for the small amount of material that was actually a problem (most of his materials were returned).... I've been able to garner it was fairly explicit sex/bondage/rape involving characters drawn to appear very young. The covers in the linked ANN article were enough for my curiosity.

I'm wondering if j-list and other vendors are thinking they might should have contributed to his defense.

The state I'm in (Oregon) has some very strong laws about freedom of expression (stronger than federal) so I'm not worried personally - but it does look like I'll be crossing one or more states off my "possible living destination" list. I guess folks in Handley's state had better watch their drawn stick figure erotica collections.

It does seem to be a case of lack of common sense. It's certainly a controversial issue we have here, but seriously. Would cartoon images of pre-teen girls in revealing outfits or doing rather raunchy acts instigate that the material is child pornography? Real, maybe, but just because someone in an apartment somewhere might actually jack off to this stuff, doesn't mean a blanket ban should be placed. Lolita should be legal, I don't see a problem with that.

Apparently they made an exception for you this time, since there's a list of the titles of the "stuff he got in trouble for" right on the ANN page linked here.

Which still doesn't change the fact I'm not allowed to be familiar with the material in question. Hence, I would not consider myself - or pretty much any other law abiding Canadian - to have a properly informed opinion on the subject.

The point is... however obnoxious they may be, they're g-d drawings with ink and paper. The ages of the fictional characters are meaningless. They are the expressions of ideas and musings. There's literally no difference between this "crime" and imagining bad things happening to the prosecutor.

The more I think about it, the more stunning a disaster this is in legal-land.

As for the small amount of material that was actually a problem (most of his materials were returned).... I've been able to garner it was fairly explicit sex/bondage/rape involving characters drawn to appear very young. The covers in the linked ANN article were enough for my curiosity.

I'm wondering if j-list and other vendors are thinking they might should have contributed to his defense.

The state I'm in (Oregon) has some very strong laws about freedom of expression (stronger than federal) so I'm not worried personally - but it does look like I'll be crossing one or more states off my "possible living destination" list. I guess folks in Handley's state had better watch their drawn stick figure erotica collections.

I will not ever be able to wrap my head around the idea that something one has *drawn* could be illegal or that possessing such a *drawing* could be illegal. It is fundamentally insane.

This is purely bull. Hopefully someone will stand up and say "it's just a cartoon picture". I can't see a drawing like this going down to every anatomical feature of a child. Therefore if it were me, I'd say it wasn't pornography. 2 children actually having sex is porno--and now I think federal government may close this site down after I mentioned that.

Anyway, obscenity laws are just a way for idiots to get around the fact that stuff they don't like is protected by free speech. It's basically encoding "that's disgusting" into law. There's no real standard for what's obscene, so there's really no way to know if you're even breaking the law until you're charged. You can find some people who would find any porn obscene. Hell, you can find people who think perfectly innocent and not pornographic in anyway pictures are obscene.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mg1942

i don't recall but is it the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who intercepted Handley's packages? Do they check foreign packages randomly or they go through it one by one?

As far as I know it's random. There aren't enough customs workers to check each one after all. Though I think they're more likely to check packages from some countries than others.

i think the webisite where he ordered mangas didn't fill out the customs papers properly and (i think) that's what led ICE to pry open his package...

Yeah, if something's wrong with the paperwork or the package in some way looks suspicious they'll definitely look, but even if everything's ok with it they still might open it for inspection. Customs can open anything entering the country they decide to check.

Yeah, if something's wrong with the paperwork or the package in some way looks suspicious they'll definitely look, but even if everything's ok with it they still might open it for inspection. Customs can open anything entering the country they decide to check.

i think ICE is starting to treat japan like mexico...
whatever is coming from mexico and japan (i think) it is now subject to more inspection...
they check mexico for illegal drugs and illegal aliens thoroughly...and now they're on the lookout for lolimangas coming from japan by mail and those daring to sneak one inside the airport and smuggle it out of japan!

The state I'm in (Oregon) has some very strong laws about freedom of expression (stronger than federal) so I'm not worried personally - but it does look like I'll be crossing one or more states off my "possible living destination" list. I guess folks in Handley's state had better watch their drawn stick figure erotica collections.

It was a federal court (pdf warning) that found him guilty so it doesn't matter what state you live in. All U.S. district court judges are appointed by the president, and we've had Republican presidents for 20 of the last 29 years.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court has been enforcing the First Amendment over the last decade with regards to pornography. It struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act in 2002 (6-3) and the Child Online Protection Act in 2004 (5-4).

The result: Congress passes a slightly different law, the Protect Act, which makes some of the same actions illegal and Handley gets convicted. I can't find any news on whether Handley is appealing.